1

Is there an agreement in the scientific community upon a diet (eating program) that can avoid or drastically reduce risk of cancer? The information out there is very vague and sometimes contradictory. I wonder if there is a list, or something more specific that stands out.

closed as too broad by Christian, Rusty, rjzii, Larian LeQuella Nov 8 '14 at 2:13

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Practically speaking, it's difficult to research diet-based disease avoidance, and also probably difficult to fund. Firstly, reliably tracking what people eat over long periods is difficult, because you can't follow them around everywhere. Secondly, in the case of avoidance, you have added doubt about whether people would have contracted the disease otherwise (so at the least that means extra control groups). Finally, who wants to fund research where there is no likely financial reward (i.e. a wonderdrug) at the end? – Benjol Nov 7 '14 at 12:47
  • You might be interested to research Catherine Kousmine, who convinced herself (by setting up her own mouse-research 'laboratory' in her home) that cancer was caused by diet. As far as I know, her results have not been reproduced. But also, as far as I know, no one has tried. – Benjol Nov 7 '14 at 12:49
  • @user1873 Unless you can link to some studies that prove that claim, it would be best not to post it here, even as a comment. And "carcinogens" do not equal "radiation" so I'm not sure why you are drawing a comparison between the two. – Graham Nov 7 '14 at 14:49
  • 1
    @Graham, tell that to the surgeon general. If here is no safe level of SHS, there is no safe level of banana consumption. As for 1 banana consumption per day for a year being equal to a chest X-ray, my math is essentially right (although I had the incorrect units for x-ray radiation). A CT scan is much more radiation than a chest x-ray. – user1873 Nov 7 '14 at 20:03
  • 1
    @user1873, what you describe is the linear no-threshold model, which is widely assumed correct but is generally acknowledged to have limited evidence supporting it; there are alternative models for the effects of low-dose radiation that give different answers. – Mark Nov 8 '14 at 0:00

Browse other questions tagged .